DOCSLIB.ORG

Driver Comprehension of Diagrammatic Freeway Guide Signs and Their Text Alternatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Driver Comprehension of Diagrammatic Freeway Guide Signs and Their Text Alternatives Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-07/0-5147-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date DRIVER COMPREHENSION OF DIAGRAMMATIC FREEWAY October 2006 GUIDE SIGNS Published: February 2007 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Susan T. Chrysler, Alicia A. Williams, Dillon S. Funkhouser, Andrew Report 0-5147-1 J. Holick, Marcus A. Brewer 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project 0-5147 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2004 – August 2006 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Guidelines for the Use of Diagrammatic Guide Signs and Their Alternatives URL: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5147-1.pdf 16. Abstract This report contains the results of a three-phase human factors study which tested driver comprehension of diagrammatic freeway guide signs and their text alternatives. Four different interchange types were tested: left optional exit, left lane drop, freeway to freeway split with optional center lane, and two lane right exits with optional lanes. Three phases of the project tested comprehension by using digitally edited photographs of advance guide signs in freeway scenes. Participants viewed a computer slideshow in which slides were shown for only three seconds to simulate a single driver eye glance at a sign. All signs were mounted overhead in the photographs. Participants were provided a route number and city name as a destination that could be reached either by the through route or the exit route. They indicated which lane or lanes they would choose to reach the given destination. The fourth phase of the study used a fixed-base driving simulator which presented full sign sequences consisting of two advance guides and one exit direction sign. Performance measures were distance from the gore at which required lane changes were made and number of unnecessary lane changes made. Results showed that for the left exits the standard text-only signs performed equal to or better than the diagrammatic signs. This performance was true for left lane drops also. For the right exit with optional lane, the standard text signs did well, as did the diagrammatic signs. For freeway-to- freeway splits, standard text signs with two arrows over the optional lane performed better than either style of diagrammatic sign. This report also contains an extensive literature review of previous work in the area, a discussion of testing methodology, and suggestions for future research. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Traffic signs, diagrammatic signs, freeway guide No restrictions. This document is available to the signs, driver comprehension, driving simulation public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 http://www.ntis.gov 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 236 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized DRIVER COMPREHENSION OF DIAGRAMMATIC FREEWAY GUIDE SIGNS by Susan T. Chrysler Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute Alicia A. Williams Research Associate Texas Transportation Institute Dillon Funkhouser Assistant Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute Andrew J. Holick Assistant Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute and Marcus A. Brewer Assistant Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Report 0-5147-1 Project 0-5147 Project Title: Guidelines for the Use of Diagrammatic Guide Signs and Their Alternatives Performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration October 2006 Published: February 2007 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DISCLAIMER This research was performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the FHWA or TxDOT. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States government and the State of Texas do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. The engineer in charge of the project was Marcus A. Brewer, P.E. (TX-92997). v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was conducted in cooperation with TxDOT and FHWA. The authors wish to acknowledge the project director, James Bailey, and members of the Project Monitoring Committee: Greg Brinkmeyer, Linden Burgess, Michael Chacon, Chris Freeman, Charles Hearn, Wade Odell, Mark Olson, Dale Picha, and Cathy Wood. We would also like to thank the two project coordinators, Richard Skopik and Mary Owen. The project could not have been completed without assistance from Texas A&M students Amanda Anderle Fling, Chris Rountree, and Jonnae Hice. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures............................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi Chapter 1: Background................................................................................................................ 1 Existing Standards ...................................................................................................................... 1 United States Standards and Practices .................................................................................... 1 International Standards and Practices ..................................................................................... 3 Past Research ............................................................................................................................ 10 Survey Studies ...................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 2: Interchange Exit Configurations ........................................................................... 29 Chapter 3: Phases 1 & 2 Driver Comprehension Testing using PowerPoint® Slides........... 31 Material Preparation.................................................................................................................. 31 Left Exits (LE) ...................................................................................................................... 31 Left Lane Drops (LLD)......................................................................................................... 31 Right Exits with Optional Lanes (REO) ............................................................................... 33 Freeway to Freeway Splits (SPLT)....................................................................................... 33 Experimental Method................................................................................................................ 36 Research Participants............................................................................................................ 36 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 36 Results of Phases 1 & 2 PowerPoint Testing............................................................................ 39 Left Exit ................................................................................................................................ 39 Left Lane Drop...................................................................................................................... 41 Right Exit Optional............................................................................................................... 44 Freeway to Freeway Splits.................................................................................................... 45 Discussion................................................................................................................................. 48 Left Exit ................................................................................................................................ 48 Left Lane Drop...................................................................................................................... 48 Right Exit Optional............................................................................................................... 49 Freeway to Freeway Splits.................................................................................................... 49 Effects of EXIT ONLY Plaque............................................................................................. 50 Recommendations Based on Phases 1 and 2 ........................................................................ 52 Chapter 4:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 1 North
    Interstate 73 FEIS: I-95 to North Carolina The feasibility study recognized that there had been some improvements to roads in the project study area; however, the improved roads were predicted to have capacity problems along some segments by the year 2025, based on traffic modeling. Future traffic projections indicated that I-73 would divert traffic from existing roadways, which would improve capacity and reduce traffic congestion.10 North Carolina completed a feasibility study in 2005 that evaluated alternatives for the proposed I­ 74 in Columbus and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina, located in the southeastern portion of the state. The study was an initial step in the planning and design and described the project, costs, and identified potential problems that required consideration. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was passed by Congress and signed into law on August 10, 2005. SAFETEA-LU acknowledges the prior purpose for, and designation of, I-73 as a High Priority Corridor, along with designating it as a project of “national and regional significance” (23 U.S.C. §101(2005)). In addition, SAFETEA-LU provides earmarks for the I-73 project in South Carolina. At the state level, Concurrent Resolution H 3320 passed by the South Carolina General Assembly in 2003 states “that the members of the General Assembly express their collective belief and desire that the Department of Transportation should consider its next interstate project as one that provides the Pee Dee Region with access to the interstate system.”11 Both Congress and the South Carolina General Assembly have appropriated money to SCDOT to study the potential corridor for the proposed I-73.
    [Show full text]
  • Rest Area Map 2017.Ai
    250 000 mE 300 000 mE 350 000 mE 400 000 mE 450 000 mE 500 000 mE 550 000 mE 600 000 mE 650 000 mE 700 000 mE 750 000 mE 120° 119º 118° 117° 116° 115° 114° OREGON IDAHO TO TWIN FALLS TO FIELDS TO JORDAN VALLEY TO MOUNTAIN HOME 42° LAKE TO ADEL TWIN FALLS CASSIA 42° HARNEY MALHEUR OWYHEE 4 650 000 mN Jackpot 4 650 000 mN Denio 292 140 McDermitt Owyhee Denio Jct 93 Salmon Falls 95 225 Mountain City Creek Contact Thousand 140 Springs Leonard Creek 293 MODOC Orovada 4 600 000 mN Orovada 4 600 000 mN Paradise Valley Jack Creek North Fork Wilkins ELDER BOX (site) 226 TO PARK VALLEY 140 290 Montello ION HUMBOLDT UN PACIFIC TO CEDARVILLE Pequop 233 Button ELKO Dinner Station 4 550 000 mN Deeth Wells 4 550 000 mN 231 95 Point 41° 230 41° Oasis 225 ALT Winnemucca 93 789 UNION UNION Jungo Halleck (site) Leeville PACIFIC Golconda 229 UNIO UNION (site) 294 N PACIFIC 80 80 Tungsten PACIFIC Elko Arthur WASHOE (site) Valmy 766 TO SALT LAKE CITY PACIFIC Spring 95 Valmy Creek Wendover West Beowawe Wendover 80 227 Lamoille Cosgrave 806 Gerlach Rye Patch Imlay Carlin Reservoir (Welcome Mill City 228 229 4 500 000 mN 4 500 000 mN Battle Mountain Empire 767 Station) PACIFIC 400 ALT (site) Copper Beowawe 93 Canyon PERSHING (site) 305 NORTHERN ON I 447 Unionville 306 UN 401 93 TOOELE Crescent 278 Jiggs Valley LASSEN Oreana Tenabo DISTRICT (site) DISTRICT NEVADA TO IBAPAH Currie U P Rochester Valley of 399 398 (site) Gold Acres (site) 4 450 000 mN 2 the Moon 3 4 450 000 mN Lovelock Garden Pyramid 397 Valley Lages Station 40 Lake 40° 445 NORTHERN Sutcliffe Cherry
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1 Document Organization .............................................................................................. 1 Project Process .......................................................................................................... 3 Stakeholder Coordination ............................................................................................... 4 Vision, Goals, and Objectives .......................................................................................... 5 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 7 System Overview ....................................................................................................... 7 City of Tallahassee ..................................................................................................... 9 ITS Infrastructure .................................................................................................... 9 Communications ..................................................................................................... 9 Traffic Management Center .................................................................................... 16 Traffic Signals........................................................................................................ 17 Bicycle Technology...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana Emergency Evacuation
    49E LMOiller ULafayette ISIColuAmbia NA EUnion MERGAshley ENChiCcot YWashington EVACUATION WMinston AP Holmes Attala Noxubee 371 Humphreys Cass 71 79 51 425 165 65 2 Morehouse Sharkey Yazoo Neshoba Kemper 3 Claiborne West Carroll Leake 2 Issaquena 55 167 Union 2 2 79 East Carroll Bossier 63 1 133 49 Madison Lincoln Monroe 17 65 Caddo 80 61 20 Harrison 220 Webster 80 167 Meridian Ouachita 80 Lauderdale Shreveport Jackson Newton 20 371 80 Scott 20 165 Richland 79 6 220 147 Madison Warren Jackson 20 80 Bienville 2 1 Hinds Rankin 71 17 Vicksburg 167 34 65 Panola 171 Franklin Caldwell Clarke Jasper 84 Red River Smith De Soto 165 Tensas 15 Claiborne 84 45 Winn Simpson 49 171 11 84 Copiah 49 1 84 Shelby Jefferson 55 84 Natchitoches Catahoula 65 Wayne 167 84 Covington Jones 6 71 La Salle 51 Lawrence 165 84 65 Natchez Jefferson Davis Sabine Lincoln 84 1 84 Concordia Adams 6 Franklin 28 59 Grant 61 San Augustine Mississippi Sabine Hattiesburg 171 Alexandria Greene Marion Lamar Forrest Perry 28 5 Pike 98 Wilkinson Amite Walthall Rapides Vernon 3 98 55 8 Avoyelles Texas 7 1 61 West Feliciana George East Feliciana 59 167 4 43 Washington 21 67 St. Helena Stone 71 25 19 Pearl River Newton 8 449 51 190 Evangeline 49 Pointe Coupee Jasper 27 165 49 East Baton Rouge 16 Tangipahoa 11 26 61 171 113 167 Tyler Beauregard Allen 13 16 Jackson 190 21 190 Harrison Tyler 110 109 190 190 St. Landry 41 12 190 West Baton Rouge 12 59 Hancock St.
    [Show full text]
  • ORN Road Net Element
    Unclassified Land Information Ontario Data Description ORN Road Net Element Disclaimer This technical documentation has been prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources (the “Ministry”), representing Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario. Although every effort has been made to verify the information, this document is presented as is, and the Ministry makes no guarantees, representations or warranties with respect to the information contained within this document, either express or implied, arising by law or otherwise, including but not limited to, effectiveness, completeness, accuracy, or fitness for purpose. The Ministry is not liable or responsible for any loss or harm of any kind arising from use of this information. For an accessible version of this document, please contact Land Information Ontario at (705) 755 1878 or [email protected] ©Queens Printer for Ontario, 2019 LIO Class Description ORN Road Net Element Class Short Name: ORNELEM Version Number: 2 Class Description: The basic centreline road network features, which forms the spatial framework for the ORN. Road net elements are bound by a junction on each end, except for cul-de-sacs (loops) where there is only one junction. The ORN is segmented at real-world intersections (junctions) on the ground. Abstract Class Name: SPSLINEM Abstract Class Description: Spatial Single-Line With Measures: An object is represented by ONE and ONLY ONE line. All vertices along the arc have measures (values for x, y, m). Measures are required for dynamic segmentation/linear referencing. Example: Ontario Road Network road segments. Metadata URL: Tables in LIO Class: ORN Road Net Element ORN_ROAD_NET_ELEMENT_FT The basic centreline of road network features, which forms the spatial network of roads, composed of three types of road net elements, road element, ferry connection and virtual road.
    [Show full text]
  • Swutc/09/476660-00003-2 Compendium of Student
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. SWUTC/09/476660-00003-2 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date COMPENDIUM OF STUDENT PAPERS: 2009 October 2009 UNDERGRADUATE TRANSPORTATION SCHOLARS 6. Performing Organization Code PROGRAM 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Christopher Senesi, Stephanie Everett, Jordan Easterling and George Report 476660-00003-2 Bogonko, Authors, and H. Gene Hawkins, Editor 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DTRT07-G-0006 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Southwest Region University Transportation Center Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University System 14. Sponsoring Agency Code College Station, Texas 77843-3135 15. Supplementary Notes Program Director: H. Gene Hawkins, Ph.D., P.E. Participating Students: Christopher Senesi, Stephanie Everett, Jordan Easterling and George Bogonko. Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program. 16. Abstract This report is a compilation of research papers written by students participating in the 2009 Undergraduate Transportation Scholars Program. The ten-week summer program, now in its nineteenth year, provides undergraduate students in Civil Engineering the opportunity to learn about transportation engineering through participating in sponsored transportation research projects. The program design allows students to interact directly with a Texas A&M University faculty member or Texas Transportation Institute researcher in developing a research proposal, conducting valid research, and documenting the research results through oral presentations and research papers.
    [Show full text]
  • Streetpro US Product Guide
    StreetPro U.S. Version 9.3 PRODUCT GUIDE Information in this document is subject to change without notice and does not represent a commitment on the part of the vendor or its representatives. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without the written permission of MapInfo Corporation, One Global View, Troy, New York 12180-8399. © 2006 MapInfo Corporation. All rights reserved. MapInfo, the MapInfo logo and StreetPro U.S. are trademarks of MapInfo Corporation and/or its affiliates. MapInfo Corporate Headquarters: Voice: (518) 285-6000 Fax: (518) 285-6070 Sales Info Hotline: (800) 327-8627 Government Sales Hotline: (800) 619-2333 Technical Support Hotline: (518) 285-7283 Technical Support Fax: (518) 285-6080 Contact information for all MapInfo offices is located at: http://www.mapinfo.com/contactus. Adobe Acrobat® is a registered trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States. Products named herein may be trademarks of their respective manufacturers and are hereby recognized. Trademarked names are used editorially, to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intent to infringe on the trademark. November 2006 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Getting Started with StreetPro U.S.. 9 What is StreetPro Display and StreetPro EAL? . .10 Accessing your StreetPro U.S. Data Quickly . .10 Got MapInfo Professional? Use Workspaces! . .11 Got MapX or MapXtreme Windows? Use Geosets!. .12 Got MapXtreme Java Edition? Use Map Definition Files! . .12 Got MapXtreme? Use Map Workspace Files! . .13 Reviewing the StreetPro Tools . .14 StreetPro Features . .14 New Features in StreetPro 9.3 .
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts
    Massachusetts A Study by the Historic US Route 20 Association, INC September 2017 1926 US HIGHWAY SHIELD 1960 – Present US HIGHWAY SHIELD HISTORIC ROUTE 20 SIGN Welcome! Since 2013, the Historic US Route 20 Association has traveled across Massachusetts, meeting with various Visitors Bureaus, Chambers of Commerce, Cities, Economic Development offices and more to discuss traveling US Route 20 and the designation of the original 1926 highway alignment as Historic Route 20. This study is a outcome of our recent visits, follow-ups and details for the future. Prepared by Bryan Farr – President, Historic US Route 20 April 24, 2017 Cover: Copy of the 1929 Massachusetts State Highway Map. ▪ Purpose – to designate and recognize the original 1926 alignment of US Route 20 as a State “Historic Route/Highway” in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. ▪ Objective – to promote travel & tourism and economic development by placing wayfinding signs (Historic Markers) on the original 1926 alignments of US Route 20 in Massachusetts. ▪ Goals – ▪ To work with the 31 towns and cities on the current & former alignments of US Route 20 in Massachusetts to erect Historic Route 20 signs on their respective sections of highway. ▪ To increase travel and tourism on the US 20 across Massachusetts ▪ Bring people back into the small towns ▪ To connect with other communities and states that are on US Route 20 ▪ To make Historic Route 20 a tourist destination, similar to the iconic Route 66 ▪ A 501 (c) 3 Non Profit organization founded in 2012, recognized Public Charity and Economic Development ▪ Federal EIN 46-0837490 ▪ We aim to promote travel & tourism and economic development on the original 1926 alignment of US Route 20 across the United States by working with local communities, economic development offices, visitor’s bureaus and chamber’s of commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina
    Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina Piedmont Triad Rural Planning Organization Piedmont Triad Council of Governments May 2011 Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina May 2011 Prepared by Piedmont Triad Rural Planning Organization & Piedmont Triad Council of Governments In partnership with: Cape Fear RPO• Greensboro Urban Area MPO • High Point Urban Area MPO • Lumber River RPO Northwest Piedmont RPO • Winston-Salem Urban Area MPO Staff Hanna Cockburn, AICP, Planning Program Manager Jesse Day, Regional Planner Anne Edwards, Director, Regional Data Center Malinda Ford, GIS Planner Route data courtesy of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Lead Planning Agencies Table of Contents The Great Lakes Mid-Atlantic Route ........................................................................................................... 1 Interstate Impacts .......................................................................................................................................... 2 The North Carolina Corridor .......................................................................................................................... 3 Surry County .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Stokes County ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Forsyth County ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Victory Highway in Nevada MPDF
    NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (formerly 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. ___X___ New Submission ________ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing The Victory Highway in Nevada B. Associated Historic Contexts (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) The Victory Highway, Statewide, 1921-1926 Victory Highway/US 40 and National Numbered Highway System, Statewide, 1927-1939 C. Form Prepared by: Name/Title Alex Borger, Liz Boyer, Chad Moffett and Timothy Smith Cultural Resources Specialists Organization Mead & Hunt, Inc. Street & Number 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 240 City or Town Sacramento State CA Zip Code 95834 Email [email protected] Telephone 916-971-3961 Date April 2020 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR 60 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. _______________________________ _Nevada SHPO____________ ________________ Signature of Certifying Official Title Date _Nevada State Historic Preservation Office____________ State or Federal Agency or Tribal Government I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory [ Edit ] Regulatory Signs Give Instructions to Motorists, Pedestrians, and Cyclists
    6/4/2018 Road signs in the United States - Wikipedia Regulatory [ edit ] Regulatory signs give instructions to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Signs such as stop, no parking, no turns, and yield are considered regulatory signs. Some have special shapes, such as the octagon for the stop sign and the X shape for railroad crossings. Some signs can be localized, such as no parking, and some are only found in state and local jurisdictions as they are based on state or local laws, such as New York City's "Don't Block the Box" signs. These signs are in the R series of signs in the MUTCD and typically in the R series in most state supplements or state MUTCDs. R1 Series: Stop and Yield [ edit ] The MUTCD's R1 series is for stop and yield. As not all situations are covered, several states have their own standards in addition to the MUTCD. The 4-WAY and 3-WAY plaques (R1-3) were deprecated in the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD in favor of the ALL WAY plaque (R1-4P). Stop and Yield Stop Yield All way plate Yield to State law Yield to State law stop for pedestrians, pedestrians in pedestrians in New York C ity crosswalk crosswalk 4-way plate 3-way plate Yield here to Yield here to Stop here for Stop here for pedestrians pedestrians (alt) pedestrians pedestrians (alt) Wait On Stop Go On Slow Except Right Turn (plaque) R2 Series: Speed Limit [ edit ] The MUTCD's R2 series is for speed limit signs. Some state supplements and state MUTCDs place various speed limit signs in other series.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impact of I-73 in South Carolina
    5.12.2011 Economic Impact of I-73 in South Carolina The existence of I-73 will inject billions of dollars into the I-73 Corridor and South Carolina, and provide tens of thousands of jobs in tourism, retail, service, and warehouse industries. After road completion, annual economic impacts estimated at $2.0 billion will sustain 22,347 jobs in South Carolina in 2030 and beyond. Prepared Northeastern Strategic Alliance (NESA) for Richmond, Virginia Cleveland, Ohio 1309 East Cary Street 1025 East Huron Road Richmond, Virginia 23219 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 804.649.1107 (phone) 216.357.4730 (phone) 804.644.2828 (fax) 216.357.4730 (fax) www.chmuraecon.com Table of Contents 1. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 5 3. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 4. Literature Review .................................................................................................................................................. 11 4.1. Aggregate National Studies ............................................................................................................................. 11 4.2. Regional Studies .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]